Fed. Judge refuses Obama's request to stop trial of U.S.S. Cole mastermind

Fed. Judge refuses Obama's request to stop trial of U.S.S. Cole mastermind

www.foxnews.com

A military judge has refused the Obama administration's request to delay the arraignment of Abu al-Nashiri, the accused planner of the 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen, FOX News learned Thursday.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Excuse me, but why in the heck is the PRESIDENT of the United States, attempting to stop the legal process, specifically, the ongoing trial of the alleged mastermind of the U.S.S. Cole Bombing.

The legal system has problems, yes, I would agree with that. But I applaud this Judge for not allowing Obama to demand that this trial be stopped.

Roast him, just like he roasted our military onboard that ship.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by 1curious1
Excuse me, but why
www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The WHY is apparent ... Obama is distancing himself from Bush's War Crimes and torture, and trying to close Gitmo as the world community demands.

This dispicable terrorist was tortured by the idiots in the past administration.

The Geneva Conventions forbid the torture. If we are "allowed" to torture prisoners; then, that gives the signal it's okay for other countries to torture OUR soldiers who are captured.

This is a by-product of the Bush/Cheney era.

Here are a couple links to get you started; it goes a lot deeper than just these though, so, keep up your search for answers and truth.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.cbsnews.com...

I say ship him back to Yemen.

On September 29, 2004, al-Nashiri was sentenced to death in absentia by a Yemeni court.

www.hrw.org...

Problem solved.

reply to post by 1curious1


The Fox News link is not working.

I did a search for the title as well and nothing came up.

The CBS link to the yemen story below the OP does come up fine.

reply to post by Ex_MislTech


www.foxnews.com...

here is the link

[edit on 29-1-2009 by jam321]

reply to post by Trexter Ziam


Yeah, that, and the fact the dude might be Obama's third cousin.

Originally posted by Trexter Ziam

Originally posted by 1curious1
Excuse me, but why
www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The WHY is apparent ... Obama is distancing himself from Bush's War Crimes and torture, and trying to close Gitmo as the world community demands.

This dispicable terrorist was tortured by the idiots in the past administration.

The Geneva Conventions forbid the torture. If we are "allowed" to torture prisoners; then, that gives the signal it's okay for other countries to torture OUR soldiers who are captured.

This is a by-product of the Bush/Cheney era.

Here are a couple links to get you started; it goes a lot deeper than just these though, so, keep up your search for answers and truth.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.cbsnews.com...

So, are you blaming Bush for the judges refusal to grant Obama's request. Not sure that I understand your statement.

Arraignment is part of the process and the judge wants to move forward with the case. Simple.

Even Obama has left the door open to questionable interrogation tactics if the crime warrants it or if National Security is at stake. It is a necessary evil in our bizarre world until someone devises a way to read the minds of these terrorists.

Finally a judge stands up for what is right. What's right? The Separation of Powers between the judiciary and the executive branch. Remember the constitution?

Geoff Morrell, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters that there were 'no ifs, ands or buts' about adhering to the president's executive order and that there would be: 'No proceedings continuing down at Gitmo with military commissions.

'The bottom line is, we all work for the president of the United States in this chain of command, and he has signed an executive order which has made abundantly clear that until these reviews are done all of this is on hiatus.'

Too many people, including our "leaders" have forgotten about this premise. I, for one, find this extremely refreshing.

you'd think a military judge would be forced to obey the Commander in Chief, since this is military and not civilian court.

Not to mention that Bush powered up the exec branch and did away with 4th amendment for the POW's...
What standing does a judge under military rule have to defy CIC's order?

reply to post by Trexter Ziam


Regarding "The Geneva Conventions forbid the torture. If we are "allowed" to torture prisoners; then, that gives the signal it's okay for other countries to torture OUR soldiers who are captured." ..

A. The Geneva Convention specifically excludes combatants who:
1. Are not wearing an unmistakable military uniform
AND/OR
2. Hide among civilians
AND/OR
3. Operate without a clear, known chain of command
AND/OR
4. Çonceal their arms (their personal weapons, not their elbows).

B. What torture? A few military miscreants at Abu Graib harassed a few prisoners. The Army was investigating it before the media picked it up to hit Bush over the head with it, and most of the miscreants were punished. A few of the very worst terrorists were waterboarded, saving thousands of innocent lives. Big deal. Beyond that, the prisoners at Gitmo are the most pampered prisoners this side of Bernard Madoff.

C. Did the terrorists need any excuse to slowly saw off journalists' heads? Do you think they would not do the same to Billy Graham, the Pope, or a homeless man plucked from any free world city street?